Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 11:04:08AM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> Josh Triplett <josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:31:55PM -0400, Chris Ball wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Aug 23 2011, Venkatraman S wrote:
>> >> > - struct mmc_request mrq = {0};
>> >> > + struct mmc_request mrq = {NULL};
>> >>
>> >> The sparse warning is mistaken. Or I'm mistaken. But I suspect it's
>> >> the sparse warning.
>> >
>> > Notice that it says "the remainder of the aggregate". The first field
>> > still gets initialized with the 0 you supplied, and the first field of
>> > struct mmc_request has a pointer type.
>>
>> That's an understandable position, but I think it would also be
>> reasonable for sparse to special case using {0} as an
>> initializer. {0} is a valid initializer for every type and so
>> it's sometimes used as an initializer for a local variable to get
>> the same effect that one would have for a static variable without
>> specifying an initializer.
>
> {} produces the same effect, as far as I know.
{} is not a valid initializer for every type in the same way as
{0}, e.g.:
blp@hardrock:~/db$ cat > tmp.c
int x = {};
int y = {0};
blp@hardrock:~/db$ gcc tmp.c
tmp.c:1:1: error: empty scalar initializer
tmp.c:1:1: error: (near initialization for 'x')
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
